24 April 2014

Quick Survey of Thoughts on the Telephone Game

You may already be aware of the unfortunate telephone conversation between Pope Francis and a divorced and (civilly-) remarried woman (recent reports say the husband was the divorced one) wherein she claims the Pope told her that she could present herself for Holy Communion, and further that the whole issue was up for discussion at the Vatican.Initially, I didn't post because I hoped (rather than expected) that the Vatican would issue a denial of the substance of the conversation. It has not; rather it has confirmed the existence of the conversation but dismisses it as a private matter.

So now this very public matter-- the same kind of practical public relations nightmare as "Who am I to judge?"-gate-- is open for discussion among Catholics. Predictably, the paid shills of the status quo are shucking and jiving, spinning plates and dancing for nickels. The award for most comical attempt to diffuse the situation goes to Jimmy Akin, who laughably suggests radical-sanation-by-phone: "for decree of nullity, press 3; for radical sanation, press 9; if you would like to speak to a Roman Pontiff at anytime, please press 0".More to the point is this post from Fr. Ray Blake, who describes the problem quite well by using the rhetorical device of describing what the situation must be in order for there not to be a problem. A good read-- but read carefully.The best summary and analysis I've read, though, comes from Steve Skojec. I will excerpt it below. You might recall that I have in the past found fault with those bloggers who always want to point out how the Pope's words and actions are being misinterpreted. I think that regardless of intent, he knows exactly what he is doing by these "random" "casual" comments etc. If he didn't the first time, or three times, he does by now.Skojec says what needs to be said about the current fracas:

Pope Francis called an Argentine woman married to a
divorced man and reportedly told her that she could receive the
sacrament of Communion, according to the woman’s husband, in an apparent
contradiction of Catholic law.

Julio Sabetta, from San Lorenzo in the Pope’s home country, said his
wife, Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona, spoke with Francis on Monday.

Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona wrote to the pontiff in September to ask
for clarification on the Communion issue, according to her husband, who
said his divorced status had prevented her from receiving the sacrament.

“She spoke with the Pope, and he said she was absolved of all sins
and she could go and get the Holy Communion because she was not doing
anything wrong,” Sabetta told Channel 3 Rosario, a CNN affiliate.

A Vatican spokesman confirmed the telephone call but would not comment on the conversation’s content.

“It’s between the Pope and the woman,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant for the Vatican press office.

Rosica said that any comments made by the Pope should not be
construed as a change in church doctrine. “The magisterium of the church
is not defined by personal phone calls.”

Is anyone else getting really, really tired of this game?

Pope Francis consistently says things that cause serious concern
among Catholics who know what the Church teaches. No sooner have the
words left his mouth (and of course, been reported on far and wide) than
the spin machine goes into high gear – powered in large part by
Catholic bloggers who make a living promoting the status quo within the
Church (no conflict of interest there!) — telling us why we should not
worry about the obviously controversial thing because of one of the
following reasons:

It’s a translation issue

It’s a contextual issue

When he said “X” it’s clear that he probably meant “Y”

The source is unreliable

The information is not first-hand

We must look at the issue through the Argentinian cultural lens

The media is misrepresenting what he said

He contradicted himself in another thing that he said during a homily last week

Fr. Lombardi says it ain’t true

Take your pick. There are probably others. I imagine the Catholic
apologists in the tank for this nonsense have a sort of flow chart they
pass around every time they add a new option. “Did the Pope speak in
Italian? –> IF YES, it’s not his native language. Lost in
Translation. IF NO…”[...]

You’ll have to excuse my sarcasm. I’m starting to find this all
incredibly offensive, and insulting to the collective intelligence of
Catholics who see what is really going on.The Holy Father is, for all intents and purposes, shooting a rail gun into the heart of the faith. He is undeniably causing mass division and confusion, which are not signs of God’s work, and these things are particularly afflicting the faithful Catholics who are in the tiny minority among the world’s self-professed Catholics.

You can’t simply look at each incident as an isolated issue. You have
to look at the problem comprehensively. All this build up about divorce
and remarriage and communion. The endless goings on about pastoral
concerns trumping rubrics. The condemnations of triumphalism and
neo-pelagianism. The public praising of Kasper’s dangerous speech on the
topic, and of him as a theologian. The constant shaking up of the way
things are done and the obvious disregard for the way things are supposed be.
The false humility which masks the absolutely unilateral power with
which tradition is dispensed with. The insistence on collegiality and
delegating papal authority to local bishops, only for the pope to go
directly to people and make these kinds of phone calls.

[...]

The pope has been made personally aware of the way people receive his comments (with “big eyes”
no less.) He has responded directly (by phone!) to some of his critics,
thanking them for their criticism (isn’t he MAGNANIMOUS?!). Still, he
has not become sensitive to the fallout or changed his approach. He has
not, in a word, become responsible.So this phone call happens. It is reported that the pope tells this
woman something that is clearly in contradiction with Church teaching.
The Vatican press office is asked about it — and the story is confirmed —
thus making the inner circle aware that people want to know, especially
leading up to the synod in October, which will address this issue of
communion for the divorced and remarried.

And yet, we receive no clarification. We get vagueries from Fr.
Lombardi, which some are choosing to interpret as a polite way of saying
that lies are being spread[...]

Why would this woman lie if she got the answer she wanted? Why make something up?And if she didn’t get the answer she wanted and did lie about it, only the Pope himself can say, “Yes, I spoke to her, but this is not what was said.” Since
he knows this is becoming a big story, it behooves him to do this if he
cares about preserving doctrinal clarity and avoiding unnecessarily
scandalizing the faithful. If he doesn’t want to speak to it
directly, the statement that needs to be made by the press office, with
his authorization, is astonishingly simple:“The Holy Father cannot comment on the contents of a personal phone
call, but suffice to say that in his discussion he did, in fact,
reaffirm the Church’s longstanding teaching on divorce and remarriage,
and the conditions for the reception of communion.”

That kills the noise. Instead, this continues to get bigger and
spread and affect people’s perceptions of what is really going on. The
pope understands by now how fast the media machine works. He should be
pretty used to creating controversy at this point, and a man in his
position with his obligation to safeguard the sensus fidei would, one would assume, care a great deal about setting the record straight.

When the Vatican Press Office hangs the Pope out to dry, more than some poor old Bear in the middle of the woods is concerned. The Bear almost feels sorry for the volunteer Swiss Militia of the blogosphere who are being made to look like fools by the Pope.

Agreed that this is dangerously confusing (and will probably get run every bit as far as the "Who am I to judge?" comment), but why do you dismiss Mr. Akin's argument as "comical"? Is it possible the lady wrote something in her original letter to the Pope that allowed him to, as the supreme legislator of the Church, determine her first union to be invalid? Even Paul, for example, allowed Christians to break a union with an unbaptized spouse.

“…more alarming is Akin’s subtle linguistic “escape hatch.” If you look closely, he repeatedly refers to the Church’s disallowing Holy Communion to those in a state of adultery as a “discipline” or a “practice.” So, although Akin is presently ready to fight tooth and nail to demonstrate there has been no official change, IF there should be a change later on, it would simply be a change to Church discipline or practice and not doctrine.This is patently untrue. Christ’s own teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is absolute as is St. Paul’s teaching that it is a sacrilege to receive Communion in a state of mortal sin.” Chris Jackson http://tinyurl.com/lmwq7vn

Ma'am, Agreed, but Mr. Akin's argument appears to be that the Pope found some grounds of invalidity with her first marriage and simply validated her current situation as the Church's supreme legislator. What I am asking is, how do we know that situation did not happen?

One must turn over every stone to be sure the pastoral conversation wasn't an example of a canon law nicety which would allow a re-married person to present themselves to communion. It' called "Internal Forum."

If you don't know what it is put on some fresh underwear and look it up.

The gist of internal forum is that irregularly situated Catholics living together who cannot separate for the sake of the children may take sacraments by being celebate and chaste and basically putting themselves under the close range spiritual command of their parish priest.

It is used.

This is probably not such an example but for completion's sake somebody should find out.

A Day That Will Live in Glory

Pray for the Four Cardinals: Burke, Caffarra, Meiser and Brandmuller

“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day."